This category needs an editor. We encourage you to help if you are qualified.
Volunteer, or read more about what this involves.
Related categories
Siblings:
9 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
  1. Gillian Barker (1993). Models of Biological Change: Implications of Three Cases of "Lamrckian" Change. In Perspectives in Ethology 10: Behavior and Evolution. 229-248.
  2. Christopher Eliot (2009). Darwinism and its Discontents. By Michael Ruse. [REVIEW] Metaphilosophy 40 (5):702-710.
  3. James Franklin (1997). Stove's Anti-Darwinism. Philosophy 72 (279):133-136.
    Stove's article, 'So you think you are a Darwinian?'[ 1] was essentially an advertisement for his book, Darwinian Fairytales.[ 2] The central argument of the book is that Darwin's theory, in both Darwin's and recent sociobiological versions, asserts many things about the human and other species that are known to be false, but protects itself from refutation by its logical complexity. A great number of ad hoc devices, he claims, are used to protect the theory. If co operation is observed (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Logan Paul Gage (2013). Nagel, Thomas., Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. Review of Metaphysics 66 (3):588-590.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Massimo Pigliucci (2010). A Misguided Attack on Evolution. [REVIEW] Nature 464:353-354.
    Why Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini are wrong about Darwin and evolution.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Massimo Pigliucci (2010). What Darwin Got Wrong. [REVIEW] Philosophy Now 81:38-39.
    What Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini got wrong about Darwin and evolution.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Reed Richter (2002). What Science Can and Cannot Say: The Problems with Methodological Naturalism. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 22 (Jan-Apr 2002):18-22.
    This paper rejects a view of science called "methodological naturalism." -/- According to many defenders of mainstream science and Darwinian evolution, anti-evolution critics--creationists and intelligent design proponents--are conceptually and epistemologically confusing science and religion, a supernatural view of world. These defenders of evolution contend that doing science requires adhering to a methodology that is strictly and essentially naturalistic: science is essentially committed to "methodological naturalism" and assumes that all the phenomena it investigates are entirely natural and consistent with the laws (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Marco Solinas (2012). L'impronta dell'inutilità. Dalla teleologia di Aristotele alle genealogie di Darwin. ETS.
    The book aims to offer a contribution to the historiographical and conceptual reconfiguration of the evolutionary revolution in the light of the centuries-old tenets of the Aristotelian biological tradition. Darwin’s breakthrough constitutes a thorough overturning of the fixist, essentialist and teleological framework created by Aristotle, a framework still dominant in the 17th Century world of Harvey and Ray, as well as Galileo, and then hegemonic until Linnaeus and Cuvier. This change is exemplified in the morphological analysis of useless parts, such (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Marco Solinas (2009). L'impronta dell'inutilità. Il tramonto delle cause finali nell'impianto evoluzionistico. Leussein (3/6):127-145.